Killfile (Was: Lee Corbin's Goodbye)

From: Hubert Mania (humania@t-online.de)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 13:28:45 MDT

  • Next message: Mark Walker: "Re: Killfile (Was: Lee Corbin's Goodbye)"

    Mark Walters writes:

    > I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the voting discussion. I'm not
    > suggesting that we vote people off the list, I'm suggesting that people
    > might change their behavior in response to the signals they get about the
    > value of their posts. Think of it as somewhat like a market. We are
    > producers of messages and we want as many people to "buy" our messages as
    > possible. If I send out messages that have a high perceived noise to
    signal
    > ratio many people will put me in their killfile, so I will have fewer
    > "buyers". I agree about the perennial dangers of centralized authority,
    and
    > while what I am suggesting is not immune from distortion, I also think the
    > dangers of corruption are fairly minimal. The public display of the
    > killfiles might look like a table with everyone's name on this list (there
    > is what about a 1000 people on this list?) on the X and Y axis. I could
    look
    > up your name and see if I am in your killfile and you can look up my name
    > and see if I am in your killfile. One conjecture then is that if people
    can
    > signal their dislike of someone's posts by using the killfile this may
    > reduce the acrimonious exchanges that sometimes go on. If we are having
    such
    > an exchange I might put you in my killfile and you might retaliate by
    > putting me in your killfile--and so would end the exchange. Next to each
    > person's name would be the number of people that have entered him or her
    > into their killfiles. The conjecture is that people might change their
    > behavior so as not to be entered into too many killfiles. Take an extreme
    > example. Suppose an individual posts tons of Nazi propaganda to the list
    > every day. I conjecture that almost all will enter this person into their
    > killfiles, hence the Nazi's voice will go unheard. This Nazi cannot
    complain
    > about a centralized authority squashing her voice since the killfiles are
    > set by individuals. As I said, the right to free speech does not entail an
    > obligation on others to listen. The reason this system would be relatively
    > impervious to corruption is that each person's killfile would be
    displayed.
    > If there was an attempt to discredit someone by artificially raising their
    > killfile quotient this could be easily detected because each killfile is
    > assignable to a specific individual. If the list managers tried to
    > artificially raise your killfile quotient they would have to assign it to
    > some individuals, say one of them is me. When I look and see that my
    > preferences have been tampered with I will scream bloody blue murder on
    and
    > off the list.

    In your message you use the word killfile fifteen times.

    Maybe it has to to with a language barrier, but when I read the word
    killfile 15 times in a 35 line message I get the impression there is a war
    going on in the heads of the posters. All this scoring and voting,
    collecting
    points, making impressions, being competitive, getting adapted to the rat
    race of a mental market place.. Scoring, statistics . . . well I simply
    don`t like it. The use of this very word "killfile" suggests a hostile
    atmosphere, at least a competitive one with this
    noise-to-signal-ratio-correctness, always this obsession to be efficient.

    I never implemented a killfile in my whole Internet career. I want to *know*
    what my opponents think. That's why I read their messages with a special
    care and interest. Sometimes I learn from them more than from persons I
    always agree with.

    Hubert "Killthekillfiles" Mania



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 13:40:05 MDT